The Iraq Thread

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 03 2003,13:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">then why have these inspectors not found the smoking gun if it is under your nose, fact is theri is no evidence yo like bush claim iraq is hiding it and not coorperating, please use something you can back up not just opions.<span id='postcolor'>

in 1998, weapons inspectors found these weapons. Then they were kicked out. Now, this is just common sense. Saddam would not disarm after going through a lot of trouble to get these weapons. but if you dont want to listen to this logic, listen to the people who have actually been there. who have actually worked on his WMDs. they've said he's working on these programs. you've got UN proof, and you've got defected Iraqis telling you their experiences. if that doesn't convince you then nothing short of a nuclear bomb will.

And thank you very much for your support Tex. <span id='postcolor'>

Im sure after 12 years of nothing we can expect 12 more years of nothing and more, lets say the US dose not attack and nothing happens what will you say then? What do you know about what iraq has all u have is claims and assumptions and no evidence and yet claim it is right there, i swear u could almsot be bush.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Feb. 03 2003,06:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">again plz use facts not just what u think or the media says, again why will saddiam use WMD? You credibilty decreases with every post, much like the US's evidence.<span id='postcolor'>

Lets look at the post I've already made.

You don't buy bullets to put on your mantle. Saddam is not manufacturing weapons of mass destruction to use as a paperweight. He's going to use them. Either against a civilian population like he's already done, or as a means of intimidation. The US is only maintaining it's stockpile so other people won't attack us.

[Harnu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">again why will saddiam use WMD?<span id='postcolor'>

If you're about to lose control of your country, what would you do? Especially when he's already shown his willingness in using them.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 03 2003,00:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I could say the same thing about you, you know.<span id='postcolor'>

You could, but it would be totally inaccurate.

Good to see you are sticking to your 10 year old "I know you are but what am I!" defense.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Feb. 03 2003,06:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Im sure after 12 years of nothing we can expect 12 more years of nothing and more,<span id='postcolor'>

Again, lets look at a post I've already made.  Saddam has done anything but nothing for the past 12 years.  According to both the UN and defected Iraqis he's been developing WMDs.  Until he proves beyond reasonable doubt that he's destroyed these weapons, not just proving that he doesn't have them in his country, he's a credible threat to the US and it's assets.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> lets say the US dose not attack and nothing happens what will you say then?<span id='postcolor'>

Lets say the US doesn't attack and suddenly a nuclear bomb goes off in New York City.  What will you say then?  The blood of however hundreds of thousands of innocent people that died will be on anyone who's opposed this war's hands.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What do you know about what iraq has all u have is claims and assumptions and no evidence and yet claim it is right there, i swear u could almsot be bush.<span id='postcolor'>

THERE

IS

EVIDENCE

UN inspection teams found it

Iraqi defectors have confessed about it

for some reason you're ignoring it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Good to see you are sticking to your 10 year old "I know you are but what am I!" defense. <span id='postcolor'>

Good to see that you're sticking to your personal attacks on me instead of making any real points. Makes my job much easier.

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 03 2003,13:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Feb. 03 2003,06:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">again plz use facts not just what u think or the media says, again why will saddiam use WMD? You credibilty decreases with every post, much like the US's evidence.<span id='postcolor'>

Lets look at the post I've already made.

You don't buy bullets to put on your mantle. Saddam is not manufacturing weapons of mass destruction to use as a paperweight. He's going to use them. Either against a civilian population like he's already done, or as a means of intimidation. The US is only maintaining it's stockpile so other people won't attack us.<span id='postcolor'>

what if he has WMDs so people wont attack him like the US? all this reasoning is easly turned around, maybee you forget which country has used WMDs against civilian populations.

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 03 2003,14:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Good to see that you're sticking to your personal attacks on me instead of making any real points. Makes my job much easier.<span id='postcolor'>

lol... what do you know about real points, you point is saddiam is making nukes to attack the US which many people have givin you valid reasons why this is as likly as pigs are to fly.

[HellToupee 0]

raq blinds Bush to world picture

03.02.2003

By PAUL G. BUCHANAN

Ye shall reap what ye have sown" goes the saying. In the case of United States foreign policy, there is a significant possibility that what is harvested will be bitter fruit.

The desire of the Bush Administration to recast the global political landscape in an image more favourable to the US, using the 9/11 terrorist attacks as the justification for unilateral military intervention against hostile states, has blinded it to some of the complexities of the current world scene.

Consider three areas of US foreign policy concern: Venezuela, North Korea and Iraq.

Clearly enough, the US has had its fill of Saddam Hussein and sees his removal as a priority.

Amid the bellicose bluster coming out of Washington, the justification for his forced ouster resides in the belief that the intersection of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and terrorism is a matter of when, not if, and that it is most likely to occur sooner rather than later in Iraq if Saddam is not removed from power.

Hence, whether or not the UN weapons inspectors find evidence of WMD stockpiling in Iraq (and many believe that they will not, since intelligence analysts believe these were moved to Syria well in advance of recent UN security council resolutions), the US is determined to show Saddam the door at the point of a bayonet in order to install a pro-Western secular regime that will open up its oil reserves to the US and its allies.

That will allow the US to move troops from Saudi Arabia to Iraq to buffer against Iran while simultaneously reducing tensions over the infidels' presence near Islamic holy sites such as Mecca (as well as reducing Saudi control over Opec price-fixing). Whether or not this is a pipe dream, the pre-positioning of troops and materiel suggests that the assault on Iraq will begin in mid-February at the earliest.

But complications have risen as a result of US policy towards two other countries. In April the US supported an abortive coup against the democratically elected president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, whose major crime was to employ populist rhetoric and to rail against the petroleum oligarchy that controlled political power from 1958 until 1998. Although that coup failed and left the US embarrassed and exposed, the coup-plotters were encouraged by the US support and in early December 2002 began a general strike to force Chavez from office that is now into its sixth week.

This has crippled Venezuelan oil exports, of which 13 per cent go to the US market. Without that supply, US retail prices have increased sharply, and worse yet, the US may have to dip into its strategic oil reserves if it is to prosecute the war on Iraq while the Venezuelan crisis remains unresolved.

The irony is that it is a US-backed disloyal opposition that is complicating US strategic calculations, and its nemesis Chavez who would like to resume normal oil production and exports.

For its part, the timing of the North Korean decision to resume plutonium reprocessing and withdraw from the International Atomic Energy Association was brilliant. A year ago it was named part of the Axis of Evil even though it had no provable links to al Qaeda and in fact was engaged in a delicate rapprochement with South Korea on normalising relations between the two states.

Seeing that the US was using a variety of justifications to force regime change in Iraq over UN objections, the North Koreans undoubtedly calculated that they would be next on the US hit list.

Rather than wait for such an eventuality, the regime in Pyongyang took the opportunity of recent South Korean elections that saw a US critic elected to the presidency, as well as of the fact that the US was fully occupied with its war preparations in Iraq, to announce its renewed nuclear aspirations.

Caught off-guard, the US has seen its hypocrisy on weapons of mass destruction rendered transparent, since North Korea is a far worse weapons proliferator and nuclear menace than Saddam. (Recall that about a month ago a shipment of North Korean missiles destined for Yemen was intercepted by Spanish and US forces and then let go.)

Moreover, the US bluff was called to the point that it has been forced to negotiate a nuclear weapons for economic aid swap rather than threaten the North Korean regime with war. Since North Korea and Iraq are trading partners in weapons as well as other goods, the North Koreans may well have done Saddam a favour by complicating the picture.

More importantly, it exposes the lack of thought and contingency planning in post-September 11 US foreign policy planning.

The larger issue is that most of this mess is of the US' own making.

In not working through multilateral channels, in ignoring or bypassing the UN and the requisite diplomatic niceties of protocol and sovereignty, it has produced a backlash as well as worldwide unintended results.

In the meantime Osama bin Laden remains at large and al Qaeda is undefeated.

With the future of Iraq very much an open question even if Saddam is ousted (since both Iraqi Kurds and Sunnis have expressed desires for partition and independence, much to the dismay of Iraq's neighbours), the entire thrust of the US approach to international affairs needs a major review before, rather than after, the assault on Saddam is launched.

* Paul G. Buchanan is a former US defence department analyst and consultant who lectures at the University of Auckland.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 03 2003,01:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You don't buy bullets to put on your mantle.  Saddam is not manufacturing weapons of mass destruction to use as a paperweight.  He's going to use them.  Either against a civilian population like he's already done, or as a means of intimidation.  The US is only maintaining it's stockpile so other people won't attack us.<span id='postcolor'>

I see, when Iraq has WMD as a deterrent to attacking forces it's intimidation, but when the US has them it's legitmate defense...hypocracy? If Saddam is stockpiling WMD, maybe it's to defend his country from a huge imperialistic nation coming in a kicking his ass over some oil - like what happened about 11 years back. And if you want to use the past precedent of Saddam using WMD, can I cite the examples of Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

90% of your arguments are based on conjecture and an exteremely biased interpretation of facts (before you say it, no I am not biased. I don't hate America despite what you may think.)

And if my "attacking" you has made your job easier, well so be it. You are indeed a fanatical proponent of your country. I, on the other hand, am not. As much as I love my country, I am the first to admit when we do something wrong, like our handling of PNG and Timor for example.

How did Hitler become so powerful? The German people wanted him because he was a strong leader, and by the time he starting slaughtering Jews he was too well entrenched in power for anyone to do anything about it. People who blindly follow their leaders are as much a threat to democracy and freedom as are terrorists.

[FSPilot 0]

Iraq? He did gas his own people you know.

Saddam has been developing WMDs since long before anybody threatened to attack him if he had them. So that logic goes out the window. If he wanted WMDs to protect himself, he would of developed them when we started to threaten him. Not before when he wanted to make landgrabs and attack civilians.

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 03 2003,14:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">THERE

IS

EVIDENCE

UN inspection teams found it

Iraqi defectors have confessed about it

for some reason you're ignoring it.<span id='postcolor'>

then y isnt the UN convinced then why have teh inspectors found nothing, i am not ignoreing what isnt there, even our media has big head lines weapon inspectors find nothing.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 02 2003,23:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok, so what do you recommend we do Napoleon?<span id='postcolor'>

Already posted my recommendations.  Do some reading, you'll find them.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Feb. 03 2003,07:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I see, when Iraq has WMD as a deterrent to attacking forces it's intimidation<span id='postcolor'>

That's when your logic goes wrong. Iraq is not developing WMDs to defend itself. If it was, it would of started to develop WMDs when we threatened to attack them because they had WMDs.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If Saddam is stockpiling WMD, maybe it's to defend his country from a huge imperialistic nation coming in a kicking his ass over some oil - like what happened about 11 years back.<span id='postcolor'>

If saddam was stockpiling WMDs to defend itself, why did he start before his country was threatened?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">can I cite the examples of Nagasaki and Hiroshima?<span id='postcolor'>

No, we've already agreed not to talk about that. If you want to, read this thread.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am the first to admit when we do something wrong, like our handling of PNG and Timor for example.<span id='postcolor'>

Hey, so am I. I just don't think this is wrong.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How did Hitler become so powerful? The German people wanted him because he was a strong leader, and by the time he starting slaughtering Jews he was too well entrenched in power for anyone to do anything about it.<span id='postcolor'>

Hitler promised his people glory after they'd been pummeled in WW1. Their economy was in shambles and national pride was very low. He made them feel proud to be German, so of course they swooned over him. He also convinced most Germans that the Jews were the enemys. So even if they did know about the concentration camps (which is doubtful), they either didn't care or couldn't do much about it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">People who blindly follow their leaders are as much a threat to democracy and freedom as are terrorists.<span id='postcolor'>

And people who blindly believe in dictators who have proven themselves to be dangerous are a threat to themselves and their world.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">then y isnt the UN convinced then why have teh inspectors found nothing, i am not ignoreing what isnt there, even our media has big head lines weapon inspectors find nothing.<span id='postcolor'>

Because they're looking for weapons, not proof that Iraq has disarmed. His weapons are either hidden or not in his country, which is why they can't find them. They should be looking for proof that he's disarmed, not easilly concealable weapons.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 03 2003,01:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think you guys really ought to watch yourselves when calling FSPilot a fanatic. He's argued his position (which is pretty unpopular with alot of people on this board) as well as can be expected, supporting his position with facts and reasoning, and what does he get for it? He has to be civil while people continue to verbally rip into his country, his government, and himself. That's a pretty shitty deal, don't you think? What I'm saying is be a little more civil towards the guy, even if you disagree with him, because he sure as Hell is doing you that favor.<span id='postcolor'>

You're not serious are you? lol ok, I can't hold this back. Here is a little summary of the key highlights of my discussion with FsPilot on the virtues of US foreign policy:

Me: "What gives the US the right to set up/maintain a government for the Cuban people? You think this is right?!? It surprizes you that they took it down??"

FsPilot:"Well what's wrong with it? It's obvious that the American government and economy has worked wonderfully so far."

(Fast forward 60 pages or so)

FsPilot:"I want to go on record as saying that I will not support a war on Iraq unless we can find his weapons, or evidence that he's done anything except destroy his weapons. Frankly, IMO, he should be removed from power because he's a dictator who rapes and murders his own people (probably not personally, but you get the idea), but that's just my opinion."

Me:"So I guess that removing such a dictator from power by force is ok as long as he wasn't set up by the US right? I mean you've repeatedly defended Batista's regime in Cuba and the United State's support of him."

FsPilot(my favourite one! ):"The one I knew nothing about and am in no position to comment on?"

Ok, there's facts and reasoning for you....and the reason I'm not piping up on this thread much anymore . trying to reason with FsPilot is harder than building a Compiler, and I should know, it's one of my projects this year...and hell, I won't even get a college diploma out of reasoning with FsPilot!

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 03 2003,02:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq?  He did gas his own people you know.

Saddam has been developing WMDs since long before anybody threatened to attack him if he had them.  So that logic goes out the window.  If he wanted WMDs to protect himself, he would of developed them when we started to threaten him.  Not before when he wanted to make landgrabs and attack civilians.<span id='postcolor'>

Every country in the world has a right to defend itself, and WMD are an effective way to do this. Of course they can be used for illegal and amoral purposes. But so can conventional weapons. To say Iraq is unjustified because it began before GW1 is ridiculous. They are in a volatile region of the world.

Why does the US have enough WMD to destroy all their enemies ten times over (not sure of the exact figure, but I know you have more than enough nukes and other WMD do the job). Isn't that stockpiling?

Don't you get it? Every single thing you have accused Iraq of can be directly applied to the US too.

America is a schoolyard bully used to getting their own way. When Osama came along and gave you a bloody nose you went crying to mamma. When the guy who gave you the blood nose escaped you went to the next most convenient kid in the yard and began to bully him to make yourself look tough again to the other kids, and to take your anger out on someone.

[DracoPaladore 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 03 2003,01:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You say that like they have a choice to run out towards US soldiers and blow themselves up.  They're probably being forced to by Saddam<span id='postcolor'>

Good point

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 03 2003,02:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How did Hitler become so powerful? The German people wanted him because he was a strong leader, and by the time he starting slaughtering Jews he was too well entrenched in power for anyone to do anything about it.<span id='postcolor'>

Hitler promised his people glory after they'd been pummeled in WW1.  Their economy was in shambles and national pride was very low.  He made them feel proud to be German, so of course they swooned over him.  He also convinced most Germans that the Jews were the enemys.  So even if they did know about the concentration camps (which is doubtful), they either didn't care or couldn't do much about it.<span id='postcolor'>

LOl, now that is funny. Do you realise how much that description applies to you? Just substitute the words  Hitler with Bush, Jews with Muslims/Iraqis, and concentration camps with preemptive strike, and ecomic shambles with anger over s11.

Bush promised his people revenge after they'd been pummeled in S11.  Their security was in shambles and national pride was very low.  He made them feel proud to be American, so of course they swooned over him.  He also convinced most Americans that the Iraqis were the enemys.  So even if they did know about the preemptive strikes, they either didn't care or couldn't do much about it.

[Cloney 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 03 2003,02:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 03 2003,02:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How did Hitler become so powerful? The German people wanted him because he was a strong leader, and by the time he starting slaughtering Jews he was too well entrenched in power for anyone to do anything about it.<span id='postcolor'>

Hitler promised his people glory after they'd been pummeled in WW1.  Their economy was in shambles and national pride was very low.  He made them feel proud to be German, so of course they swooned over him.  He also convinced most Germans that the Jews were the enemys.  So even if they did know about the concentration camps (which is doubtful), they either didn't care or couldn't do much about it.<span id='postcolor'>

LOl, now that is funny. Do you realise how much that description applies to you? Just substitute the words  Hitler with Bush, Jews with Muslims/Iraqis, and concentration camps with preemptive strike, and ecomic shambles with anger over s11.

Bush promised his people revenge after they'd been pummeled in S11.  Their security was in shambles and national pride was very low.  He made them feel proud to be American, so of course they swooned over him.  He also convinced most Americans that the Iraqis were the enemys.  So even if they did know about the preemptive strikes, they either didn't care or couldn't do much about it.<span id='postcolor'>

That is a total lump of shit. Honestly that is just trying to incite a flame war. Comparing Bush to Hitler is blowing things completely out of proportion, you do not see him standing on his little podeum ranting about how bad Muslims and Arabs are. He has told us that SADDAM is evil, not the Iraqi people.

Also, Who the hell are you to speak for us, your not even an American. After S11 our national pride was higher than ever. Yes we'd know about a preemptive strike, and no our entire country is not for it. You should really refrain from posting inflammatory bullshit, its really weak and even more pathetic than it looks.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok, there's facts and reasoning for you....and the reason I'm not piping up on this thread much anymore . trying to reason with FsPilot is harder than building a Compiler, and I should know, it's one of my projects this year...and hell, I won't even get a college diploma out of reasoning with FsPilot!<span id='postcolor'>

Way to compare two completely different arguments as the same! You're on your way to a masters arent you.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Every country in the world has a right to defend itself, and WMD are an effective way to do this. Of course they can be used for illegal and amoral purposes. But so can conventional weapons. To say Iraq is unjustified because it began before GW1 is ridiculous. They are in a volatile region of the world.<span id='postcolor'>

And nobody would attack them if they didn't develop WMDs in the first place. Iraq did not develop WMDs to defend itself. It only developed them to intimidate it's neighbors and to attack Iran. Which it did.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why does the US have enough WMD to destroy all their enemies ten times over (not sure of the exact figure, but I know you have more than enough nukes and other WMD do the job). Isn't that stockpiling?<span id='postcolor'>

Apples and oranges.

The US was developing more and more WMDs to make the Russians not want to attack us. Saddam is developing WMDs to use them. Why do I say this? Because he is only threatened because he has WMDs in the first place.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't you get it? Every single thing you have accused Iraq of can be directly applied to the US too.<span id='postcolor'>

Not really.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">America is a schoolyard bully used to getting their own way. When Osama came along and gave you a bloody nose you went crying to mamma.<span id='postcolor'>

When Al-Queda came along and suckerpunched us we attacked them and totally pulverised the government that was sponsoring them, as well as the terrorists organisation itself. We didn't go over there purely to find Osama. Although he was a target, he isn't the only reason we're over there.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When the guy who gave you the blood nose escaped you went to the next most convenient kid in the yard and began to bully him to make yourself look tough again to the other kids, and to take your anger out on someone.<span id='postcolor'>

Now let's look at some facts instead of just whining about America doing something about international terrorism. Saddam has not been blamed for what happened on 09/11, Iraq has not been targeted for a terrorist attack. We're going after them because they're developing WMDs, not out of frustration. Your argument is just a futile attempt to make a country you obviously hate look stupid, but when you look at facts it falls apart.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">LOl, now that is funny. Do you realise how much that description applies to you? Just substitute the words Hitler with Bush, Jews with Muslims/Iraqis, and concentration camps with preemptive strike, and ecomic shambles with anger over s11.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, that's believing what Osama Bin Laden wants you to believe. Whether you trust me or not, that's not a smart thing to do.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Their security was in shambles and national pride was very low<span id='postcolor'>

Is that why there was a flag on every SUV and doorway?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So even if they did know about the preemptive strikes, they either didn't care or couldn't do much about it.<span id='postcolor'>

You're saying people don't know about preemptive strikes?

This is what's really happening: 9/11 put a giant importance on terrorism. Before this happened people didn't really care. But now that our nation had been scarred, people wanted to stop it from happening again. So we started being very aggressive against terrorism. That's one of the reasons we attacked Afghanistan. Now that we've got a big influence on terrorism, we need to take it all out. So what's next on our laundry list? Iraq. North Korea. It isn't about nationality or religion, that's an ignorant and hateful thing to say.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 03 2003,02:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">People who blindly follow their leaders are as much a threat to democracy and freedom as are terrorists.<span id='postcolor'>

And people who blindly believe in dictators who have proven themselves to be dangerous are a threat to themselves and their world.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm still waiting to hear how my opposition to an unjustified and illegal attack on Itaq means I support Saddam.

I guess if I tried to stop someone about to put a cap in the head of someone who got caught shoplifting I would be supporting theft.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 03 2003,02:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok, there's facts and reasoning for you....and the reason I'm not piping up on this thread much anymore . trying to reason with FsPilot is harder than building a Compiler, and I should know, it's one of my projects this year...and hell, I won't even get a college diploma out of reasoning with FsPilot!<span id='postcolor'>

Way to compare two completely different arguments as the same!  You're on your way to a masters arent you.<span id='postcolor'>

The fact that you showed such complete ignorance on the Cuban issue and yet vehemently defended Batista and the American support he had shows damn well you are probably applying the same to Iraq. Let me ask you something Fs, do you have any idea what it feels like, when someone from a country who's goverment had upheld a bloody dictator upon your country, defends that act by saying that their country has a wonderful democracy and economy? If anyone had ever said that to my face, I would have done more than just "rip them verbally"

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 03 2003,02:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq is not developing WMDs to defend itself. If it was, it would of started to develop WMDs when we threatened to attack them because they had WMDs.

<span id='postcolor'>

-

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If saddam was stockpiling WMDs to defend itself, why did he start before his country was threatened?

<span id='postcolor'>

-

I just had a look at these quotes and would like to ask you a very simple question: Why didn't Saddam use WMD during Desert Storm - gee, he could even have launched a few scuds with b or c instead of explosives into his main enemy Israel?

Do you realy believe he would attack anyone unless he didn't feel threatened. Think about it, wouldn't you say the threat of being invaded during Desert Storm was considerable?

Let's bring this one step further. Let's say he now realizes US has decided on taking him down - and he does posess chemical or biological weapons. At the same time US has threatened that it will use nuclear weapons on Iraq if they are exposed to WMD's. In a situation like that I would say it's pretty likely that anyone in his position would use WMD's in order to possibly halt or stop the invasion. Maybe he is gambling on you not accepting the high death tolls and worldwide condemnation of your retaliation affecting millions of innocent people.

Just a few thoughts on my behalf, but I'd say that IF Saddam has any such weapons and at the same time keeping in mind the US aggresiveness - we are currently looking at a possible "worst catastrophy" ever known to man!

I bet the rest of the world would have a hard time putting the blame solely on Saddam!

[Assault (CAN) 1]

I've been avoiding this thread and ones like it like the ebola virus.

Excuse my ignorance here: Isn't it illegal to own or use chemical/biological weapons? Many countries have them (like Canada) but they are only used only for testing purposes. Is it only the Geneva convention that outlaws them?

Anyways, I feel much safer knowing that the U.S., England, France, etc have nukes. They will probably never use them. As for Iraq, it is reasonable that Saddam should not be allowed to own WMD, especially after what he has done with them. Yes I am aware that the U.S. supplied Iraq with various weapons, but other countries did as well. Besides, times were different then.

Tyler

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Feb. 03 2003,08:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The fact that you showed such complete ignorance on the Cuban issue and yet vehemently defended Batista and the American support he had shows damn well you are probably applying the same to Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

Even though I've admitted to knowing nothing about the Cuban incident, and have only presented facts and common sense in this argument?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I just had a look at these quotes and would like to ask you a very simple question: Why didn't Saddam use WMD during Desert Storm - gee, he could even have launched a few scuds with b or c instead of explosives into his main enemy Israel?<span id='postcolor'>

Probably because he was afraid of US retalliation. He wasn't in the Iran-Iraq war, or when he used them against the Kurds. The US hasn't said whether or not it would retalliate if Saddam used NBC weapons on anybody besides the US.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you realy believe he would attack anyone unless he didn't feel threatened. Think about it, wouldn't you say the threat of being invaded during Desert Storm was considerable?<span id='postcolor'>

Was Kuwait a viable military threat before Desert Storm? No. Were the kurds a viable military threat? Probably not either.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Let's bring this one step further. Let's say he now realizes US has decided on taking him down - and he does posess chemical or biological weapons. At the same time US has threatened that it will use nuclear weapons on Iraq if they are exposed to WMD's. In a situation like that I would say it's pretty likely that anyone in his position would use WMD's in order to possibly halt or stop the invasion. Maybe he is gambling on you not accepting the high death tolls and worldwide condemnation of your retaliation affecting millions of innocent people.<span id='postcolor'>

That makes sense, but why was he developing WMDs before he was threatened with an invasion? Why was he still doing it when he knew that posessing WMDs would take him out of harms way?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just a few thoughts on my behalf, but I'd say that IF Saddam has any such weapons and at the same time keeping in mind the US aggresiveness - we are currently looking at a possible "worst catastrophy" ever known to man!

I bet the rest of the world would have a hard time putting the blame solely on Saddam!<span id='postcolor'>

Well it's only a matter of time anyway since he does have WMDs. So we either let our military handle it or we let him use them on a civilian population.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Excuse my ignorance here: Isn't it illegal to own or use chemical/biological weapons? Many countries have them (like Canada) but they are only used only for testing purposes. Is it only the Geneva convention that outlaws them?<span id='postcolor'>

I'd say yes (I'm not sure). But I'd say if it ever got bad enough for someone to use WMDs, rules wouldn't stop them. And if someone was crazy enough to do it without provocation, rules wouldn't stop them either.

It's like making guns illegal. Criminals will still use them. This is why we still need to maintain WMDs. If a criminal like Saddam has WMDs and wants to use them, he won't because he knows we'll shoot back.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 03 2003,03:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Even though I've admitted to knowing nothing about the Cuban incident, and have only presented facts and common sense in this argument?<span id='postcolor'>

oh nice try buddy, but you tried to provide facts on the Cuban incident (remember such facts as the "Military Coup"? and I took them all appart. Sure you're "providing facts" here, shame there isn't an Iraqi amonst the forum community to discuss those with you....every "fact" you provide is the "fact" according to your government and  you ignore everything else. That's what I've shown. The only difference here is you haven't admitted your ignorance on Iraq. By the way, any answer to the question I asked you? Put yourself in my shoes at that moment, even though you admitted you didn't know what you were talking about and hence shouldn't have been commenting, you never answered my reply to your "we have a wonderful economy and democracy" justification some 50+ pages back. In Fact, you didn't even admit that you didn't know what you were saying till a dozen or so pages ago.